Talk:February 2010 Australian cyberattacks/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Reviewer: Ankit Maity 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Review was from a malicious account. A review would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have started at second review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)